Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Socialism
Topic Started: Sep 6 2009, 01:40 PM (579 Views)
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
I'm doing a rather small paper, but I would still like your input for it.

Socialism.

How would you define it, and how do you feel about it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
It's never truly existed in reality.

Meh. Might as well add more to this post.

I feel that controlled capitalism is better, in that there is still a vibrant and competitive free market, but fail safes that keep populations from falling into poverty. That said, competition in a free market is necessary to maintain or else everyone in a purely socialist system will say screw it to working.
Edited by Ulgania, Sep 6 2009, 01:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Socialism Definition: State control of the means of production.

How I feel about it: Poorly.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Sep 6 2009, 11:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

The term "socialism" is as arbitrarily defined and heavily connotative as the term "capitalism."

That being said, my favorite definition is Hagbard Celine's:

Socialism - The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelius
Member Avatar
Norman Warlord
Esternarx
Sep 8 2009, 10:51 AM
Socialism - The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.
This is my stance on the socialist/capitalist debate. It's all corrupt, the question is whether it's one entity or several and what really can benefit the most at the time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Lansdallius
Sep 8 2009, 02:05 PM
Esternarx
Sep 8 2009, 10:51 AM
Socialism - The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.
This is my stance on the socialist/capitalist debate. It's all corrupt, the question is whether it's one entity or several and what really can benefit the most at the time.
The corruption of both capitalism and socialism comes from state coercion. State capitalism, or corporatism, or fascism, or whatever you want to call it, is currently the system in place within the Washingtonian Empire. As Mussolini proscribed, so did it come to pass. Big business allied with big government.

State socialism is impossible and will always devolve into state capitalism. The state is power. Power attracts capital. The state and its allies become the new capitalist class. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Benjamin Tucker had some things to say about socialism:

Quote:
 
There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.
Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.

I am a socialist in the second sense. I fiercely oppose socialism in the first sense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
E, thank you. You've provided a rich position for me to look into. Unfortunately, I only have today to research and write the rough draft, but you have certainly helped me.

EDIT:

The draft will have three sections:

What the common anti-socialist thinks socialism is.

What socialism is actually supposed to be.

What socialism turns out to be.

You're point-of-view will be perfect for the third section.
Edited by Sedulius, Sep 8 2009, 03:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
New question. How would you define communism, and how do you feel about it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abenakia
Member Avatar
Corporal
 *  *  *
Sedulius
Sep 8 2009, 03:07 PM
E, thank you. You've provided a rich position for me to look into. Unfortunately, I only have today to research and write the rough draft, but you have certainly helped me.

EDIT:

The draft will have three sections:

What the common anti-socialist thinks socialism is.

What socialism is actually supposed to be.

What socialism turns out to be.

You're point-of-view will be perfect for the third section.
If I might point out an issue, you're using socialism pretty broadly without narrowing the context. Authoritarian socialism and libertarian socialism are two beasts of completely different natures, as Esternarx pointed out. I think you ought to spend some good time clearing up any ambiguities or at least be clear about which you're speaking of.

Quote:
 
New question. How would you define communism, and how do you feel about it?


Communism, in the most basic sense, would be the abolition of private property and possession, with all goods --capital and otherwise-- being held in common.

As for how I feel about it, it is completely and totally economically bankrupt; it clearly suffers from the same economic illiteracy that most Left economics suffer from, from the rejection of property and even possession, to the completely irrational attachment to the labor theory of property.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Authoritarian socialism is the only "feasible" form of socialism.

Libertarian socialism is an utopia.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abenakia
Member Avatar
Corporal
 *  *  *
Paradise
Sep 8 2009, 04:17 PM
Authoritarian socialism is the only "feasible" form of socialism.

Libertarian socialism is an utopia.
Respectfully, I'd disagree. There is nothing utopian about libertarian socialism-- indeed, we're not the ones that are making the brazen and broad claim that only the State can cure specific ills, that only a special group with the title of "government" and "State" can magically accomplish tasks that private individuals working cooperatively could not accomplish.

In fact, no rational anarchist or libertarian socialist would ever argue for a utopian society-- we're simply arguing for a more optimal society. The authoritarian socialism promises bread and circuses, and all we ever get is poverty and war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
I've narrowed down my study. I'll post when I've written it, so you'll see where I go. This will be only the rough draft, however.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Esternarx isn't a libertarian socialist - he's not a socialist, he's a libertarian anarcho-capitalist. Whether or not he calls himself a socialist, I give as much credence to using that terminology as when Rand decided that "objectivist" meant somebody who agreed with her viewpoint.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abenakia
Member Avatar
Corporal
 *  *  *
Quaon
Sep 8 2009, 05:54 PM
Esternarx isn't a libertarian socialist - he's not a socialist, he's a libertarian anarcho-capitalist. Whether or not he calls himself a socialist, I give as much credence to using that terminology as when Rand decided that "objectivist" meant somebody who agreed with her viewpoint.
What Esternarx is and isn't really isn't relevant here, I think. That said, I'm confused as to the direction of your post here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
You said something about how Esternarx pointed out there was a difference between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism. While I don't seek to speak for Esternarx, from my understanding of libertarian socialism, he would be opposed to it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abenakia
Member Avatar
Corporal
 *  *  *
Quaon
Sep 8 2009, 06:19 PM
You said something about how Esternarx pointed out there was a difference between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism. While I don't seek to speak for Esternarx, from my understanding of libertarian socialism, he would be opposed to it.
The poem Esternax posted draws out the parallels differences between Authoritarian and Libertarian socialism, which is what I was referencing-- whether or not he is a libertarian socialist had nothing to do with my posts.
Edited by Abenakia, Sep 8 2009, 06:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Abenakia
Sep 8 2009, 04:24 PM
Paradise
Sep 8 2009, 04:17 PM
Authoritarian socialism is the only "feasible" form of socialism.

Libertarian socialism is an utopia.
Respectfully, I'd disagree. There is nothing utopian about libertarian socialism-- indeed, we're not the ones that are making the brazen and broad claim that only the State can cure specific ills, that only a special group with the title of "government" and "State" can magically accomplish tasks that private individuals working cooperatively could not accomplish.

In fact, no rational anarchist or libertarian socialist would ever argue for a utopian society-- we're simply arguing for a more optimal society. The authoritarian socialism promises bread and circuses, and all we ever get is poverty and war.
Human nature makes it impossible for libertarian socialism to work. You need the coercive nature of the State to force socialism onto individuals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Quaon
Sep 8 2009, 05:54 PM
Esternarx isn't a libertarian socialist - he's not a socialist, he's a libertarian anarcho-capitalist. Whether or not he calls himself a socialist, I give as much credence to using that terminology as when Rand decided that "objectivist" meant somebody who agreed with her viewpoint.
I'm a libertarian socialist when I feel like it. And I'm a libertarian capitalist when I feel like it. I can move fluidly between left and right libertarianism whenever the mood strikes me. I oppose the state. What particular modes of social organization will arise in its absence is less important to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abenakia
Member Avatar
Corporal
 *  *  *
Paradise
Sep 8 2009, 07:00 PM
Abenakia
Sep 8 2009, 04:24 PM
Paradise
Sep 8 2009, 04:17 PM
Authoritarian socialism is the only "feasible" form of socialism.

Libertarian socialism is an utopia.
Respectfully, I'd disagree. There is nothing utopian about libertarian socialism-- indeed, we're not the ones that are making the brazen and broad claim that only the State can cure specific ills, that only a special group with the title of "government" and "State" can magically accomplish tasks that private individuals working cooperatively could not accomplish.

In fact, no rational anarchist or libertarian socialist would ever argue for a utopian society-- we're simply arguing for a more optimal society. The authoritarian socialism promises bread and circuses, and all we ever get is poverty and war.
Human nature makes it impossible for libertarian socialism to work. You need the coercive nature of the State to force socialism onto individuals.
If you're going to be bringing new and broad concepts to the table, I think it is fair if you defined them, especially human nature (what is human nature? Remember, if it is human nature, it must apply to all humans at all times.). Otherwise, I'm left with an unproven and tautological assumption on your part, which doesn't really let the discussion advance.

Moreover, I'm not sure where you're drawing the need for a State for some effect of socialism to exist. You're making an implication of a mutual exclusivity between socialism and violence, and I'm not sure how you're coming to such a conclusion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
There are many things the private sector can't accomplish that the government can.

Do central bank induced inflation and boom-bust cycles occur in a free market? No.

Do unsustainable modes of living occur in a free market? No.

Does industrial scale socialism occur in a free market? No.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abenakia
Member Avatar
Corporal
 *  *  *
Tristan da Cunha
Sep 8 2009, 07:15 PM
Does industrial scale socialism occur in a free market? No.
My first question would be: how can you be sure? We've never had a free market.

My second question would be: how are you defining socialism?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Abenakia
Sep 8 2009, 07:19 PM
Tristan da Cunha
Sep 8 2009, 07:15 PM
Does industrial scale socialism occur in a free market? No.
My first question would be: how can you be sure? We've never had a free market.


[/quote]Well I can't honestly say I'm 100.00% sure, but economics is the art of applying economic theory and making such predictions. So I'll assign 95% odds to my prediction. I'm also interested in why you specifically quoted that item of my post, and you didn't ask your question about the other items of my post.

Abenakia
 
My second question would be: how are you defining socialism?


Diffuse ownership of a set of capital goods. It's a qualitative definition for the time being. In essence I'm arguing that concentrated economic power and wage based hierarchies are features of the free market.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Sep 8 2009, 07:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abenakia
Member Avatar
Corporal
 *  *  *
Tristan da Cunha
Sep 8 2009, 07:27 PM
Well I can't honestly say I'm 100.00% sure, but economics is the art of applying economic theory and making such predictions. So I'll assign 95% odds to my prediction. I'm also interested in why you specifically quoted that item of my post, and you didn't ask your question about the other items of my post.
Well, I couldn't find myself disagreeing with the other things you stated, at least in a broadly applied sense.

Quote:
 
Diffuse ownership of a set of capital goods. It's a qualitative definition for the time being. In essence I'm arguing that concentrated economic power and wage based hierarchies are features of the free market.


While I would definitely agree that the contemporary paradigm of the market is given a better incentive to have vertical organization and concentrated economic power, you must understand that most of these subsidies and organization cultures that make these incentives exist are products of State intervention on their behalf. As Carson is pointing out now (and Tucker pointed out over a century ago) wealth and capital has literally been monopolized by the financing industries, creating a bottleneck on capital that could otherwise be put to use by industrious individuals.

Moreover, hierarchy and concentration of economic power leads us to the inevitable problems of agency and calculation within a given firm-- the same problems that would plague a vertically integrated, centrally planned economy equally apply to the firm.

Simply put, I would posit that wage hierarchy and centralization of capital are no more products of a free market than cartelizing regulations.
Edited by Abenakia, Sep 8 2009, 07:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Abenakia
 
Well, I couldn't find myself disagreeing with the other things you stated, at least in a broadly applied sense.


Indeed... I don't think that question was actually necessary, other than to proceed to the definition of the rationale for the study of economics.

Abenakia
 
While I would definitely agree that the contemporary paradigm of the market is given a better incentive to have vertical organization and concentrated economic power, you must understand that most of these subsidies and organization cultures that make these incentives exist are products of State intervention on their behalf. As Carson is pointing out now (and Tucker pointed out over a century ago) wealth and capital has literally been monopolized by the financing industries, creating a bottleneck on capital that could otherwise be put to use by industrious individuals.

Moreover, hierarchy and concentration of economic power leads us to the inevitable problems of agency and calculation within a given firm-- the same problems that would plague a vertically integrated, centrally planned economy equally apply to the firm.

Simply put, I would posit that wage hierarchy and centralization of capital are no more products of a free market than cartelizing regulations.



Calculation can still be (is always) done based on the firm's interface with the "economic actors" outside the firm. In any firm there would be a natural equilibrium reached between vertical integration and diffuse calculation.

It's impossible that the types of corporatist vertical consolidations seen today are sustainable in the free market, but it's also fleetingly unlikely and impossible that significant vertical organization will disappear in the free market. It's impossible to sustain the current level of civilizational or industrial sophistication without rather extreme amounts of specialization and division of labor. In many cases of industrial production (though not all cases obviously) these divisions are most efficiently martialled by vertical integration.

I think in the broad points of economic theory we are in general and comprehensive agreement. We just reach some significantly different deductions when applying theory to the material conditions of the world. I'm sure we'll revisit these issues in the future (if not in the next post). :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
One heated debate is enogh for me at the moment, I'm not touching this topic except to say that the vast majority of Americans have serious misconceptions about the actual definition of socialism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply